In Santiago et al v. The City of New York, No. 159551/2021, 2024 WL 144971 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Jan. 12, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss (some) plaintiffs’ claims of sex-based hostile work environment asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
In sum, plaintiffs – former and current Department of Corrections employees – allege that they were subjected to sexual harassment by inmates. After granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the male plaintiffs’ claims, the court explained its rationale for reaching the opposite conclusion as to the claims asserted by the female plaintiffs.
From the decision:
However, the Amended Complaint’s allegations relating to the female plaintiffs present a more complex question. The crux of these plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claim is that they were regularly sexual harassed by inmates and that the Department of Correction was aware of this situation and failed to remedy it. There is no authority from the Courts of this State addressing whether these allegations are sufficient to state a hostile work environment under the NYSHRL. However, several federal courts have construed [T]itle VII to protect individuals who are the victims of discriminatory animus towards third persons with whom the individuals associate, including departments of correction that fail to address widespread sexual harassment of female guards by inmates after being informed of same. As both the Human Rights Law and [T]itle VII address the same type of discrimination, afford victims similar forms of redress, are textually similar and ultimately employ the same standards of recovery, the Court concludes that the NYSHRL similarly permits a hostile work environment claim on these grounds.
Here, the female plaintiffs each allege, generally, that, from 2019 through the present,2 inmates have been allowed to remain in broken cells from which they can come and go freely, allowing them to sexually harass female correction officers by, inter alia, exposing their genitals, attempting to touch female staff, and masturbating around female staff. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the Department of Correction is aware of same and has failed to take any steps to prevent such conduct.
Certain of the plaintiffs offer more specific allegations. Officer Verna Liburd, for instance, alleges that on May 27, 2021, an inmate tackled her and attempted to pull down her pants in an effort to rape her. Officer Madel Castillo alleges that, on or around July 24, 2021, an inmate attacked her twice, “grabbing her vagina each time” and that this inmate had previously engaged in similar conduct with others. Finally, Ebony Cottman and Marchelle Franklin allege that, on October 22, 2021, they were taken hostage by a group of inmates and sexually harassed, verbally abused, and groped. They also allege that “the supervisor running the facility as well as the top officials were well aware of the sexual abuse, as well as the fact that that AMKC did not have enough radio such that women uniform staff were required to work in sexually abus[ive] housing areas without the ability to communicate for help”. Finally, they allege that a report of this incident was filed with the Department of Correction but no action was taken.
Viewing these allegations through the lenient notice pleading standard afforded to NYSHRL claims, the Court concludes that they are sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim under the NYSHRL.
[Cleaned up; citations omitted.]
The court further held that this conclusion mandates the denial of the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ New York City Human Rights Law claims, since federal and state law represent a “floor below which the City’s Human Rights law cannot fall.”